San Diego County v. Michael L.
192 Cal. App. 4th 683
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In Feb 2008 the Agency petitioned for infant Andrew under §300 due to mother Darcy’s alcohol and prescription drug abuse; Andrew was detained in foster care.
- June 2008 court found the allegations true, ordered reunification services, and placed Andrew with Michael with supervised visits for Darcy.
- February 2009 Matthew was born; he initially went home with Michael after a NICU stay, while Darcy had not complied with services for Andrew.
- July 26–27, 2009 Matthew was brought to the hospital with serious concerns; social worker noted neglectful conditions and Andrew's contact with Darcy continued.
- August 5, 2009 the Agency petitioned for Matthew under §300(b) alleging substantial risk due to medical neglect and related issues; a separate petition under §387 for Andrew was filed.
- May 2010 Darcy filed a §388 petition seeking dismissal/relief; May 13, 2010 the Agency moved under §390 to dismiss §300(a) allegations and to delete language from §300(b); the court held a six-month review hearing on June 1, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §390 permitted dismissal of part of a petition after a true finding | Michael argues §390 allows only whole-petition dismissal. | Agency contends §390 can dismiss the petition in the interests of justice. | No error; court could dismiss under §390 and strike language. |
| Whether striking language from §300(b) or amending petition complied with due process | Michael contends amendment prejudiced defenses and misused §388/§390. | Agency asserts amendments conform to proof and no prejudice occurred; notice and hearing satisfied. | Amendments conformed to proof; due process satisfied; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (describes modification authority and standards in dependency cases)
- In re Jessica C., 93 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. App. 2001) (amendment to conform to proof after true findings favors amendment if no prejudice)
- In re Justice P., 123 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. App. 2004) (due process in dependency petition amendments; notice and hearing required)